Why hrc was right about white women - and their husbands

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the article: "Given the opportunity to make history by electing the first female president, women didn’t take it. And ironically, the women who bore the most resemblance to Clinton – white, heterosexual and married – were less likely to vote for her.”

Did you ever stop to think that maybe it’s because we saw right through her?
We saw who she was and didn’t want it.
We saw what she stood for, and didn’t want it.

I think it’s humorous that these people are still trying to cast blame and make excuses for Hillary’s loss.
It’s simple really. We rejected her and her politics. I know the liberals don’t want to admit that.

No, you were stupid. She stood for progress and equality, diligence and hard work. I'm a heterosexual, happily married, well educated, UMC white woman and I voted for Hillary.

You voted for a treasonous rapist. You must be so proud.

As opposed to someone who lets her husband rape other women and then scold the women?

As opposed to someone who committed treason against her country numerous times?

See how stupid my comments are. Your comments are equally stupid. Take a knee while you take a deep breath and come to terms with the reality that your Democratic Party caused Trump's election by forcing a woman on the public who was a joke. You must be so proud.

[Anonymous]

Maybe if the Dems had let the better candidate run, we'd all be sitting here talking about how Bernie was dealing with North Korea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/25/white-women-husbands-voting

White women, defend yourselves.

Trump won the majority of white women who voted

“White women more susceptible to pressure from their (mostly white) husbands”

“White women side less with all of womenhood than with their particular husband”

Interesting note:

“The more educated a woman was, the less likely they were to say women being able to support a family was important”

This tracks true with what you see on dcum. The more educated a woman is, the more she places value on male providers

“White women were most likely to dismiss the importance of women being able to support a family”

Translation: white women like being kept women the most and have providers

Overall eval of the above? Bullshit.

And if you had run a similar evaluation about black women the outcry would be deafening.

Had you read the article, you would have realized that black women hold much more independent views than white women based on survey data. That's the whole point of the article - married white women hold incredibly sheltered and paternalistic views about a women's place in the world.

did they control for the fact that statistically many black women will never marry and know they have to be more self reliant across the board?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey libs, I would like to continue this discussion, but I need to fix myself breakfast. Excuse me while I call my husband to ask him what I should eat.

Cool, too bad the data doesn't back you up:

While 71% of women polled said it was “very important” for a man to be able to support a family financially, just 41% of women said the same about their own gender. Among white men and women, the number who said it was important for women to be able to support a family was just 27%, compared to 52% among black men and women.

The trend lines are disturbing: across race and education, the groups most likely to be able to support a family on their husband’s income alone – white women, and women of all races with a college degree – were the most likely dismiss the importance of women being able to support a family.

22% of black women said they wanted to hold powerful positions, as compared with just 8% of white women

Using data from the 2012 American National Election Study, her team analyzed responses from more than 2,000 women to the following question: “Do you think that what happens generally to women in this country will have something to do with what happens in your life?” Women who said “yes” were then asked to report the extent to which they felt that was true.

The findings showed unmarried women were significantly more likely than married women to answer yes to the question. And the gaps between how single women and married women answered were largest among white women and Latina women.

I believe you, and this article, are conflating two issues....
Women who want their husbands to support their family FINANCIALLY vs. women who think for themselves.

Just because a woman would like her spouse to financially support the family (theoretically so she can stay home and raise the family) does not mean that woman cannot be an independent thinker with opinions and views separate from her spouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously? You just can't admit that women decide for themselves who to vote for? The most sexist attitude of all comes from you liberals who insist white women must have been persuaded, coerced, or bullied into voting for Trump - against their wishes, of course.

If anyone is setting back women, it's the left with their infantilizing of educated white women (and women in general).

It's appalling that you're actually blaming white women for HRC's loss, rather than taking a good, hard, dispassionate look at HRC herself and asking yourselves: why did my candidate lose? And then coming up with the correct answer, all on your own. She lost because she was an unappealing candidate. Own it and move on.

She was unappealing because of sexism. People are less likely to like strong women.

Psst: She was unappealing because Clinton is NOT a strong woman. She can't do anything on her own. She is the very sort of woman who would obey her husband's command to vote a certain way.

I'm a former R, and did not ever support the Clintons. I voted for both Bushes, but one thing I would never say about HRC is that she is a weak woman. No, she is a very strong woman, and though I may not agree with her, that is one thing I have often admired about her.. how tenacious she is. Even Trump admitted to that.

-signed a woman

Well, she fiercely defended her rapist husband so there's that.
She's strong - not ethics - but "strong" I suppose

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe if the Dems had let the better candidate run, we'd all be sitting here talking about how Bernie was dealing with North Korea.

Trump isn't the one lobbing missiles over Japan and making the East Asian community upset. FYI, Japan and Korea haven't gotten along in ages and hate each other. Last time I checked the last time the Japanese invaded the Korean Peninsula it wasn't good for the Koreans. N. Korea wants to provoke them again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I question a thread whose title alludes to which Hillary Rodham Clinton (aka HRC) commenting on the relationships of white women and their husbands. She hardly qualifies as an expert on marital relationships!

I also wonder what the OP thinks of husbands in Germany, Croatia, Estonia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom who couldn't stop their wives from electing a qualified person (albeit a white woman) to run their countries.

I voted for a biracial man for President twice; I voted for a white woman for President not once. It wasn't "a woman"; it was "that woman."

If you don't chose to believe it, so be it.

Keep your pink pussy hats and your delusions. You will need them when a qualified woman becomes President of the United States in 2020.

Our first woman president will be Nikki Haley, in 2024. Mark this post.

No, it won't.

[Anonymous]

I graduated from law school so of course I voted for HIllary and got my husband to as well.

I hate there are so many dumb whites

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I graduated from law school so of course I voted for HIllary and got my husband to as well.

I hate there are so many dumb whites

Ha ha. So, instead of men telling their “woman” what to do... you have reversed it!
Can your husband think for himself or does he always do what you tell him to do?
I guess that is what a law degree does. And, I suppose it was from an Ivy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well good for them. They got the president they voted for... hope they're happy.

Yes, thank you, we are!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously? You just can't admit that women decide for themselves who to vote for? The most sexist attitude of all comes from you liberals who insist white women must have been persuaded, coerced, or bullied into voting for Trump - against their wishes, of course.

If anyone is setting back women, it's the left with their infantilizing of educated white women (and women in general).

It's appalling that you're actually blaming white women for HRC's loss, rather than taking a good, hard, dispassionate look at HRC herself and asking yourselves: why did my candidate lose? And then coming up with the correct answer, all on your own. She lost because she was an unappealing candidate. Own it and move on.

She was unappealing because of sexism. People are less likely to like strong women.

No. She was/ is unappealing because she is... herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well good for them. They got the president they voted for... hope they're happy.

Yes, thank you, we are!

Not thrilled, but it still beats the alternative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey libs, I would like to continue this discussion, but I need to fix myself breakfast. Excuse me while I call my husband to ask him what I should eat.

Cool, too bad the data doesn't back you up:

While 71% of women polled said it was “very important” for a man to be able to support a family financially, just 41% of women said the same about their own gender. Among white men and women, the number who said it was important for women to be able to support a family was just 27%, compared to 52% among black men and women.

The trend lines are disturbing: across race and education, the groups most likely to be able to support a family on their husband’s income alone – white women, and women of all races with a college degree – were the most likely dismiss the importance of women being able to support a family.

22% of black women said they wanted to hold powerful positions, as compared with just 8% of white women

Using data from the 2012 American National Election Study, her team analyzed responses from more than 2,000 women to the following question: “Do you think that what happens generally to women in this country will have something to do with what happens in your life?” Women who said “yes” were then asked to report the extent to which they felt that was true.

The findings showed unmarried women were significantly more likely than married women to answer yes to the question. And the gaps between how single women and married women answered were largest among white women and Latina women.

I believe you, and this article, are conflating two issues....
Women who want their husbands to support their family FINANCIALLY vs. women who think for themselves.

Just because a woman would like her spouse to financially support the family (theoretically so she can stay home and raise the family) does not mean that woman cannot be an independent thinker with opinions and views separate from her spouse.

Your theory fails under scrutiny - and it makes sense. Women who are economically dependent will invariably be invested more in the needs and desires of the person they are dependent upon

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I graduated from law school so of course I voted for HIllary and got my husband to as well.

I hate there are so many dumb whites

You're husband is a beta male and you have no respect for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/25/white-women-husbands-voting

White women, defend yourselves.

Trump won the majority of white women who voted

“White women more susceptible to pressure from their (mostly white) husbands”

“White women side less with all of womenhood than with their particular husband”

Interesting note:

“The more educated a woman was, the less likely they were to say women being able to support a family was important”

This tracks true with what you see on dcum. The more educated a woman is, the more she places value on male providers

“White women were most likely to dismiss the importance of women being able to support a family”

Translation: white women like being kept women the most and have providers

Overall eval of the above? Bullshit.

And if you had run a similar evaluation about black women the outcry would be deafening.

Had you read the article, you would have realized that black women hold much more independent views than white women based on survey data. That's the whole point of the article - married white women hold incredibly sheltered and paternalistic views about a women's place in the world.

Married white women tend to have different life experiences (economically and socially) than single white women or black women and that certainly affects their political thinking. It has little to do with the woman's place in the world or paternalistic views.

Are these “different life experiences” what cause them to also be drunks and lushes - because that also has been proven in the last year. There was a 20+ page dcum thread on it in off-topic. White women drink way more than women of other races, so much so that it’s affecting the collective life expectancy of white women.

I wonder if this collective drunkenness has addled their brains so much that they voted for trump